Red Heifer Birth Paves Way For Renewed Temple Service

[bible_student]

2 Esdras is a "pseudepigraphal" or falsely attributed book. Some scholars believe the book was written shortly after the AD 70 destruction of the temple in Jerusalem during the reign of Emperor Domitian (AD 81—96). Having read it the linguistic style is far more modern than the OT works it puports to lay alongside. The only reason why it got bundled into certain Bible's is that the Catholic Church found some of its doctrines helpful to its purposes.

https://www.gotquestions.org/first-second-Esdras.html

Yet that prophecy in it came true in exact and minute detail. So, it thereby passes the Deuteronomy test, giving it validity.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

Yet that prophecy in it came true in exact and minute detail. So, it thereby passes the Deuteronomy test, giving it validity.

Lol - in the words of John McEnroe, "you cannot be serious!" Eisegesis of a falsely attributed text is not fulfilled prophecy!!!

 

[bible_student]

Lol - in the words of John McEnroe, "you cannot be serious!" Eisegesis of a falsely attributed text is not fulfilled prophecy!!!

Lol - choosing to blind yourself to the exceedingly obvious, because you do not like the message and calling it eisigesis, will not change the fact that it happened.

I mean, really. Will you deny that those events took place? Because you can actually use any search engine now and check for yourself if it came true, if you still had any doubt. All you need to do is look up an image of temple mount and you can see the evidence of the fulfilment.

Of course, you may choose to try and say that no its just eisigesis and somehow aim to deny it? even though, I really don't see how.

Usually what happens when people don't like a message, is they tend to start shooting the messenger, however that unfortunately does not alter the fact that the message is what it is.

Is that perhaps why they have told people that 2 Esdras is just pseudo, aiming to discredit it (because they didn't like what it says?) and so that people in general won't bother to read it? Whatever the case may be, what it says The Lord told Esdras, has passed the Deuteronomy test, by it having become history.

We have it out of the mouth of Jesus that not one stone of the Temple would be left on top of another and that it is left to them desolate. That's very clear and specific.

However, it's not to say that they are not going to go ahead and try and challenge that by trying to build themselves another temple, regardless of what Jesus reiterated to them - since Talmudic Judaism of course completely rejects and openly expresses their hatred of Jesus and the NT, and instead they spend most or all of their time just reading their own writing of their Talmud.

Rev 2:9 & Malachi
1:1 The burden of the Word of the "I AM" to Israel by Malachi.
1:2 I have loved you, saith the "I AM". Yet ye say, Wherein hast Thou loved us? [Was] not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the "I AM": yet I loved Jacob,
1:3 And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.
1:4 Whereas Edom saith, We are impoverished, but we will return and build the desolate places; thus saith the "I AM" Lord of hosts, They shall build, but I will throw down; and they shall call them, The border of wickedness, and, The people against whom the "I AM" hath indignation for ever.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

Lol - choosing to blind yourself to the exceedingly obvious, because you do not like the message and calling it eisigesis, will not change the fact that it happened.

I mean, really. Will you deny that those events took place? Because you can actually use any search engine now and check for yourself if it came true, if you still had any doubt. All you need to do is look up an image of temple mount and you can see the evidence of the fulfilment.

Of course, you may choose to try and say that no its just eisigesis and somehow aim to deny it? even though, I really don't see how.

Usually what happens when people don't like a message, is they tend to start shooting the messenger, however that unfortunately does not alter the fact that the message is what it is.

Is that perhaps why they have told people that 2 Esdras is just pseudo, aiming to discredit it (because they didn't like what it says?) and so that people in general won't bother to read it? Whatever the case may be, what it says The Lord told Esdras, has passed the Deuteronomy test, by it having become history.

We have it out of the mouth of Jesus that not one stone of the Temple would be left on top of another and that it is left to them desolate. That's very clear and specific.

However, it's not to say that they are not going to go ahead and try and challenge that by trying to build themselves another temple, regardless of what Jesus reiterated to them - since Talmudic Judaism of course completely rejects and openly expresses their hatred of Jesus and the NT, and instead they spend most or all of their time just reading their own writing of their Talmud.

Rev 2:9 & Malachi
1:1 The burden of the Word of the "I AM" to Israel by Malachi.
1:2 I have loved you, saith the "I AM". Yet ye say, Wherein hast Thou loved us? [Was] not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the "I AM": yet I loved Jacob,
1:3 And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.
1:4 Whereas Edom saith, We are impoverished, but we will return and build the desolate places; thus saith the "I AM" Lord of hosts, They shall build, but I will throw down; and they shall call them, The border of wickedness, and, The people against whom the "I AM" hath indignation for ever.

I'm not quite sure but are you a Muslim trying to convince me that the Apocryphal 2 Esdras points towards Muhammad? I just like to know who I'm discussing with...

 

[Renegade]

I'm not quite sure but are you a Muslim trying to convince me that the Apocryphal 2 Esdras points towards Muhammad? I just like to know who I'm discussing with...

Forever Light sock account or maybe another JAHTruth disciple..

 

[bible_student]

I'm not quite sure but are you a Muslim trying to convince me that the Apocryphal 2 Esdras points towards Muhammad? I just like to know who I'm discussing with...

Asking me this question does not address what was posted. Why would it make any difference to the facts? I simply quoted scripture, pointing out what it says.

Jesus reiterated what was told to Esdras, in Matthew 23:37.

2 Esdras
1:30. I gathered you together, as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings: but now, what shall I do unto you? I will cast you out from My face.
1:31. When ye offer unto Me, I will turn My face from you: for your solemn feastdays, your new moons, and your circumcisions, have I forsaken.

 

[bible_student]

Forever Light sock account or maybe another JAHTruth disciple..

On some forums, you are allowed to change your username if you like, but not on VC. A while back I asked about this on the "introduce yourself" thread and was informed that no, it can't be done other than by making a new account. So, I made a new account. Therefore no, it is not a sock account, but my new account, since I don't use the old one any longer.

Do you want to discuss what was posted?

 

[Daciple]

Excuse me? You are the one who needs to accept the truth.

Look Thunder, you believe you have the Truth, I believe you are wrong. I have actually studied this apart from the system of Theology that you hold to. I highly doubt that you have even for one second entertained the thought that your Dispensationalism could be or is wrong and then began to study with an open mind either the inconsistencies of Dispensationalism nor the other systems of Theology.

As I have told you multiple times, I used to be a Pre Trib Dispensationalist, I know it is hard for you to accept, but people can study other forms of Theology and recognize the massive errors of Dispensationalism and therefore reject it.

So far all I have spoken about in this thread is the absolute fact that Dispensationalism didnt exist until JND created it. I havent even touched on anything else. Just that fact alone OUGHT to make someone think twice about the veracity of this ideology. However as we can see there are people such as yourself who have invested their entire Salvation almost into Dispensationalism. To have them even think this could be wrong causes so much Cognitive Dissonance that it is impossible for them to even have a discussion about it and then reject THEIR OWN SOURCES conclusions concerning it...

Christians like me did exist, from the time of Christ and to this day.

I mean you can keep saying it over and over but that doesnt make it True. As I have already pointed out using your own source no one believed in Dispensationalism or Pre Trib Rapture or anything you believe in the way you believe it in the History of the Church until the 1800's...

There are hundreds and hundreds of books and manuscripts available that spell out the exact eschatology that Christians like me believe.

Thats funny, you cant even quote me one in context that does. You gave me a source and demeaningly told me to expand my knowledge, I went over every single point of your source and showed that your own source explicitly stated exactly what I have been saying. I also notice you didnt actually respond to any of the points I brought to light concerning your supposed sources that back up your ideology. Typical...

None of it started with Darby, and it's ignorant and dishonest for you to keep saying that.

Absolutely not, what is dishonest is for you to keep rejecting what your own source said, would you like me to quote it again for you Thunder?

If this is a pre-trib rapture statement, it was hardly recognized as such at the time. It is true that Collier had a futurist view of Revelation, which was rare to non-existent in his day.

Asgill did not relate the possible any-moment translation to the tribulation or any other prophetic event. Thus, his view could hardly be call any form of pretribulationism

“the historical fact is that the early church fathers’ view on prophecy did not correspond to what is advanced by pretribulationists today except for the one important point that both subscribe to the imminency of the rapture.

While Hermas clearly speaks of escaping the tribulation, pretribulationists and nonpretribulationists tend to agree that he does not articulate a clear message similar to modern pretribulationism

However, the very next statement speaks of believers in the tribulation. When taken within the context of all of Irenaeus’ writings on these subjects, it appears that he was not teaching pretribulationism.

Every single person you gave me to look at to support your point, your own source clearly tells you, they DO NOT ARTICULATE OR TEACH PRETRIBULATIONISM. Over and over it speak of the imminence of Christs Return. Logic dictates if they all believed that Christ was just about to Return and Israel was NOT there, they in fact never once believed or thought of had in their Eschatology any type of form of a Regathering of Israel.

These 2 points ALONE show us that in History none of these people believed in what you believe, period. You should just be honest with yourself and admit the facts...

A pre-tribulation Rapture, a dispensational system, and the restoration of Israel in the end times have always been the positions of the church.

Again you can keep saying it but it doesnt make it True..

Your point of view is a relatively modern heresy.

Lol oh is that right? So Amillennialism is modern heresy huh? Let us see if we can find anyone in the Early Church that subscribed to my viewpoint, lets see just how far back what I believe to be the most correct view of Eschatology has been held in the History of the Church, from Wiki:

Few early Christians wrote about this aspect of eschatology during the first century of Christianity, but most of the available writings from the period reflect a millenarianist perspective (sometimes referred to as chiliasm). Bishop Papias of Hierapolis (A.D. 70–155) speaks in favor of a pre-millennial position in volume three of his five volume work and Aristion[when?] and the elder John echoed his sentiments, as did other first-hand disciples and secondary followers.[3] Though most writings of the time tend to favor a millennial perspective, the amillennial position may have also been present in this early period, as suggested in the Epistle of Barnabas, and it would become the ascendant view during the next two centuries.[4][5][6][7][8][9] Church fathers of the third century who rejected the millennium included Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 – c. 215), Origen (184/185 – 253/254), and Cyprian (c. 200 – 258). Justin Martyr (died 165), who had chiliastic tendencies in his theology,[10] mentions differing views in his Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, chapter 80:

"I and many others are of this opinion [premillennialism], and [believe] that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise."[11]​

Certain amillennialists such as Albertus Pieters understand Pseudo-Barnabas to be amillennial. In the 2nd century, the Alogi (those who rejected all of John's writings) were amillennial, as was Caius in the first quarter of the 3rd century.[12] With the influence of Neo-Platonism and dualism, Clement of Alexandria and Origen denied premillennialism.[13] Likewise, Dionysius of Alexandria (died 264) argued that Revelation was not written by John and could not be interpreted literally; he was amillennial.[14]
Origen's idealizing tendency to consider only the spiritual as real (which was fundamental to his entire system) led him to combat the "rude"[15] or "crude"[16] Chiliasm of a physical and sensual beyond.
Premillennialism appeared in the available writings of the early church, but it was evident that both views existed side by side. The premillennial beliefs of the early church fathers, however, are quite different from the dominant form of modern-day premillennialism, namely dispensational premillennialism.[17]

The view that I hold as most Truthful has been around since the beginning of the Church I dont have the time to show it as of now but it IS how the Apostles interpreted prophecy. It has existed as I adhere to it, since the beginning of the Early Church, then became the prevailing and utterly dominate, pretty much ONLY Eschatology that existed from about 280-1830. Also as the big red letters say, the idea of Chiliasm is a wholly and completely different ideology than what YOU currently believe in, which is dispensational premilennialism.

Dispensational Premilennialism didnt exist until 1830, now you can keep lying to yourself and others and saying your Eschatology has existed forever, but History, the Truth is, it has not. You can also try and lie again to yourself and others and say that what I believe is modern heresey but its not, its existed far longer than your belief system and was held by the Church for 1000's of years.

Speaking of heresy Ill leave you with a quote from Eusebius who is describing what the Apostle John said of Cerinthus, the person who is spoken of as being the father of Chiliasm (the closest thing to PreMil but again NOT your Dispensational PreMil):

"He [Polycarp] says that John the Apostle once entered a bath to wash; but ascertaining that Cerinthus was within, he leaped out of the place and fled from the door, not enduring to enter under the same roof with him, and exhorting those with him to do the same, saying, ‘Let us flee, lest the bath fall in, as long as Cerinthus, that enemy of the truth is within. - From Eusebius’ Eccleslastical History, Book 3, Chapter 23. Circa A.D. 324

 

[Daciple]

Those who think that the Church has replaced Israel have a LOT to explain. You can start with this passage in Jeremiah 31:

31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:​

32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:​

33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.​

34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.​

35 Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name:​

36 If those ordinances depart from before me, saith the LORD, then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.​

37 Thus saith the LORD; If heaven above can be measured, and the foundations of the earth searched out beneath, I will also cast off all the seed of Israel for all that they have done, saith the LORD.​

How does Paul or the author of Hebrews interpret this?

Heb 8:4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:
5 Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.
6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.
8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:
9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.
13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.

According to Paul/Hebrews author ( I believe it to be Paul) the Old Covenant has passed away, and was replaced by the New Covenant. Has Jesus brought in the New Covenant or is this something to come in the Future in some 1000 yr Reign on Earth?

Matt 26:27 And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.

You and I both know that Jesus has already ushered in the New Covenant and that we who are Spiritual Israel are the ones in which have been entered into the New Covenant. That we have His Law in our minds and in our hearts and our sins He will remember no more. Or would you like to tell me that you are not part of this Covenant, or that any Jew on the planet isnt eligible for it?

 

[Thunderian]

@Daciple, I don't have time to respond to your lengthy posts, so I'll ask the same question I've been asking. It should be very simple for you to answer.

How did Israel break a covenant that God said was everlasting, and that only depended on his actions, and not theirs?

 

[Thunderian]

@Daciple, here's a verse you need to explain.

Genesis 17:19 - And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.​

 

[Thunderian]

Another question. If God can break his promise to Israel by redefining who Israel is, what's to say he can't break his promise to you by doing the same thing?

 

[Daciple]

I don't have time to respond to your lengthy posts,

Typical. Everytime we ever try and have a discussion you ignore my side and give the same weak excuse. Bet you do it again...

How did Israel break a covenant that God said was everlasting, and that only depended on his actions, and not theirs?

If that is the case why are you quoting Jer 31 where God says He will give a New Covenant? Why do you expect me to answer your questions (which I do to the fullest) but dont have the decency to answer not one that I pose to you?

Why does Paul specifically say that the Old Covenant would be done away with and a New Covenant be established?

Do you reject how Paul interprets the Old Testament and the Covenants?

here's a verse you need to explain.

Genesis 17:19 - And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.

How does Paul interpret that verse Thunder? Does he interpret it like you want to or how I say it is interpreted? IDK lets turn to his writings so he can tell us exactly what that means:

Gal 3:6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.

16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect

29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

This is the exact Covenant that you are speaking of, and according to Paul and how he interprets it which is by the Holy Spirit, the fulfillment of this Covenant is in CHRIST. That those who are in Christ WE are the heirs, not a physical decendant in an Earthly Nation some 1000's of years later. Paul goes to great lengths to persuade the brothers in Galatia that they are the heirs to the Promise NOT because of the Law NOT because of their physical decent, but ONLY because of their Faith in Christ!

Look how Paul interprets Jerusalem, does he speak of a literal phyiscal city? NO, he interprets it in the same manner in which I already quoted, which is that it is a type and a shadow of the Heavenly. Here is what he says in the next chapter:

Gal 4:22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.
24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.
25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

Jerusalem isnt about a physical literal land or city it is about the Heavenly, it is to be interpreted as an allegory. THAT is how Jesus, the Apostles and the Early Church and in fact pretty much the entire History of the Church interpreted/s the Bible. The Covenant isnt to the physical literal descendants of Israel it is to us, who are in Christ.

You quoted about Isaac, how does Paul interpret that?

Gal 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.

We are Isaac, we are the fulfillment of the Promise and as you see, Paul then interprets Ishmael and Isaac as those of the Flesh (Ishmael) persecuting those after the Spirit (Isaac), and concludes that even now it is so..

Read on in the same Book, Paul tells us exactly who the Israel of God is, and it is NOT some Physical Nation:

Gal 6:14 But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.
15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
16 And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.
17 From henceforth let no man trouble me: for I bear in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus.
18 Brethren, the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. Amen.

The entire book culminates in this exact thing, that the Israel of God are those who walk according to the rule Paul has just explained, which would be to glory in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ. The Israel of God according to Paul isnt a physical piece of land in the Middle East, instead it is the Church.

While I dont believe you are willing to accept this fact, for others who are willing to learn more about this specific phrase, this is a good site that shows without a doubt that Paul means the Church when he is referring to the Israel of God. And since it is clear that Paul interprets the Church as Israel and Israel as the Church we also ought to refine our understanding of Eschatology and the Old Testament promises in light of this. We ought to interpret Scripture as Paul and writers of the New Testament understood it, which is just as Paul specifically stated allegorical and Spiritual.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/gal6-16.html

Another question. If God can break his promise to Israel by redefining who Israel is, what's to say he can't break his promise to you by doing the same thing?

So many question to ask of me, yet wont answer not one I have asked.

God didnt break any promise, God didnt redefine Israel, what does Scripture tell us Thunder?

17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ,

The Covenant was confirmed before God IN CHRIST, thats just reality. Now you can ignore it, make excuse for why this isnt so, do whatever song and dance is needed so that you can keep your man made Theology created in 1830 by JND in tact, but God created the Covenant IN CHRIST before Christ came to the Earth. It was all apart of His plan. Israel had a purpose, to be sanctified and set apart from the rest of the World to show the power and glory of God.

All the promises of Israel, the purpose of Israel is all found in us, the Church which was the plan from the foundation of the World. WE are sanctified thru Christ, WE are set apart from the World, WE are to be shown for the power and glory of God, WE are the children of the Promise, WE are the inheritors of everything God set up in Abraham and every physical descendant of Abraham has the identical offer given to them. God is NOT a respecter of persons, your interpretations make Him a respecter of persons.

God has fulfilled every Promise to Israel in Christ, period.

Now ignore everything I wrote, tell me you cant be bothered and ask more questions you want me to answer while not responding in kind...

 

[Thunderian]

So when God says everlasting, he doesn't mean everlasting?

 

[Thunderian]

@Daciple is saying that we have become heirs to God's covenant with Abraham because Israel lacks faith and we have it.

But Israel's faith was never a condition of that covenant.

Daciple is saying that God promised Israel an inheritance, but then changed the definition of Israel so he doesn't have to keep the promise any longer?

Does that really sound like something God would do?

 

[Daciple]

So when God says everlasting, he doesn't mean everlasting?

Lev 16:34 And this shall be an everlasting statute unto you, to make an atonement for the children of Israel for all their sins once a year. And he did as the Lord commanded Moses.

Still need to Sacrifice? It is an everlasting statute right? Christs Sacrifice cant be good enough here, we need to rebuild a Temple and Sacrifice for Sin, cuz everlasting.

And again what you refuse to accept is that the Promise was fulfilled, everything Promised to Israel is found in the New Covenant.

Why do you refuse to answer ANY question I pose to you?

Is Israel in the New Covenant or not?

@Daciple is saying that we have become heirs to God's covenant with Abraham because Israel lacks faith and we have it.

But Israel's faith was never a condition of that covenant.

Daciple is saying that God promised Israel an inheritance, but then changed the definition of Israel so he doesn't have to keep the promise any longer?

Does that really sound like something God would do?

I am saying exactly what the Scriptures say, but you dont like it because Dispensationalism is more important to you than Scriptures apparently.

Did God do away with the Old Covenant yes or no?

According to Scripture why did He do away with it?

According to Scripture is there a New Covenant?

According to Scripture who is in it?

Israel has its inheritance, its called Christ and the New Heaven and Earth, you act like that isnt enough! You want these people to experience some weak worldly inheritance, one that moths can eat and rust can destroy. I say that the Promise, the Inheritance is in Heaven, in Christ and the New Heave and Earth. Jesus straight up tells you NOT to look for Earthly treasures or inheritance but you want the Jews to look for that. You want to tell me and other Christians THAT is what we ought to be looking forward to.

Sorry I no longer buy that, I see that as weak and beggarly compared to the real inheritance I have in Christ and what awaits me in the New Heavens and New Earth.

Eph 1:11 In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will:
12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.
13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
14 Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

You think that the inheritance you have is some supposed reign on this imperfect vile Earth with Jesus? No thanks I will go ahead and look forward to the real inheritance which is 2 things at once, the current inheritance of the Holy Spirit and its gifts, and then the redemption when God destroys this wicked Earth and creates a New Heaven and New Earth for us to inherit fully and perfectly.

I dont understand why people are so desperate to have Jesus reign physically on this imperfect Earth of Sin? Why wouldnt you want to look forward to the real inheritance, the real ending of all these Prophecies, in Christ in the New Heaven and Earth?

You have the same mindset of the Pharisees who wanted their Messiah to rule physically on Earth. Jesus went out of His way to tell and show them THAT is NOT why He came...

But ignore this, ignore my questions and ask some more.

 

[Karlysymon]

Genesis 17:19 - And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.​

***
Eleventh, other nations as well as Israel would come forth from Abraham (17:3-4, 6); the Arab states are some of these nations.

Can you place Esau's descendants today?
Palestinians have been called Amalekites, Philistines, Ishmaelites, and God knows what else. If its been possible to locate Jacob and Ishmael's progeny, then who and where are the Edomites?

Another question. If God can break his promise to Israel by redefining who Israel is, what's to say he can't break his promise to you by doing the same thing?
***
Set all that aside, because none of it addresses how Israel managed to break unbreakable covenants and lose her place to the Church. If the Church replaced Israel, how did Israel forfeit?

Its an agreement between two parties. God would keep His end of the agreement if they kept theirs. God almost wiped out the rebels in the desert and was ready to make a nation out of Moses (Exodus 32:10) or John's statement to the Pharisees; that God could raise up children to Abraham out of these stones.
God always keeps His word but its us who always ruin everything. Ancient Israel failed to keep their end of the bargain because of spiritual prostitution.(Ezekiel 16, Hosea, Isaiah 5). God said;
Like Adam, they have broken the covenant, they were unfaithful to Me there.~Hosea 6:7

Same with us, with what the cross accomplished. Just because salvation has been bought us doesn't mean we should go on a sinning spree. We can reject the gift and run, just like they did. God will always to find a willing party to replace the one that willingly left/broke the covenant, to fulfill His purposes.

 

[Karlysymon]

Every single person you gave me to look at to support your point, your own source clearly tells you, they DO NOT ARTICULATE OR TEACH PRETRIBULATIONISM. Over and over it speak of the imminence of Christs Return. Logic dictates if they all believed that Christ was just about to Return and Israel was NOT there, they infact never once believed or thought of had in their Eschatology any type of form of a Regathering of Israel.

Thanks for this. Indeed, many Christians in centuries past held to the hope that Christ would return in their day. If the Regathering (+the temple) was indeed an ancient and established belief in the church, as a prelude to the Second Advent, how could all those Christians maintain that expectation with the full knowledge that there isn't a literal Israel in the MiddleEast? Either they were heretics or the doctrine didn't exist.

Dispensationalist Cyrus Scofield wrote, “The Jew was promised an earthly inheritance, earthly wealth,earthly honor, earthly power. The Church is promised no such thing, but is pointed always to heaven as the place where she is to receive her rest and her reward.”

His reference bible also has this:
“For a nation to commit the sin of anti-Semitism brings inevitable judgement.”
That's right. A sin! Given how loosely that phrase is used these days, my criticism of the murder of the four Palestinian boys on the beach could well be a sin.

 

[Serveto]

If God did not begin to bring them back in the 1880s they would all be dead by now.

Your statement, certainly arguable, reminds me of a quote, attributed to an anonymous rabbi, who said, in effect: "You Christians are still looking forward to your Antichrist, but we Jews have suffered ours for the past 2,000 years." That is a hard statement, and a scathing indictment of so called "organized" Christianity.

 

[Thunderian]

Can you place Esau's descendants today?
Palestinians have been called Amalekites, Philistines, Ishmaelites, and God knows what else. If its been possible to locate Jacob and Ishmael's progeny, then who and where are the Edomites?

I don't know what happened to the Edomites. Why?

Its an agreement between two parties. God would keep His end of the agreement if they kept theirs.

These are the verses that detail the terms of the Abrahamic Covenant. Genesis 12:1-3; 13:14-18; 15:1-21; 17:1-22

Can you please identify and post the ones that tell us what Abraham's end of the agreement was?